Sign in to follow this  
Emmanuel Goldstein

Tyranny of the State

Recommended Posts

Am I the only one who thinks this is out of control. Since when do Executive Orders overide the 4th amendment? 

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm not taking a stand on this video one way or the other, but I am wondering what you saw in it, that you think is a violation of the 4th amendment.  

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Cop didn't take anything, didn't search, didn't seize, didn't have a warrant.  The only thing he did was engage in a consensual conversation with the person, and when she asked what he was going to do, he said he was going to "make documentation" that will be "forwarded to the detective bureau".

Where's the 4th amendment violation?

(Again, not saying the executive order is right or wrong, just wondering your position.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I'm not taking a stand on this video one way or the other, but I am wondering what you saw in it, that you think is a violation of the 4th amendment.  

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Cop didn't take anything, didn't search, didn't seize, didn't have a warrant.  The only thing he did was engage in a consensual conversation with the person, and when she asked what he was going to do, he said he was going to "make documentation" that will be "forwarded to the detective bureau".

Where's the 4th amendment violation?

(Again, not saying the executive order is right or wrong, just wondering your position.)

She has a right to buy and sell without the police coming in to tell her to stop without probable cause that a crime is being committed. An executive order is not a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

She has a right to buy and sell without the police coming in to tell her to stop without probable cause that a crime is being committed. An executive order is not a law.

I’m not sure it’s quite that clear cut.  Legislatures routinely cede to executives, the authority to either make standing regulations to interpret and apply existing statutes or else to make and enforce ad hoc executive orders in the midst of particular (alleged) crises.

I don’t know whether that’s the case in New Jersey, or what the scope of the governor’s designated emergency powers may be.  But I’m not sure that it’s correct in practice or in mainstream legal theory to suggest that police officers can’t enforce—or make arrests due to—an executive order.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

She has a right to buy and sell without the police coming in to tell her to stop without probable cause that a crime is being committed. An executive order is not a law.

 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not sure it’s quite that clear cut.  Legislatures routinely cede to executives, the authority to either make standing regulations to interpret and apply existing statutes or else to make and enforce ad hoc executive orders in the midst of particular (alleged) crises.

State governments get to decide what governor powers during deadly pandemics, look like?

(I actually haven't really begun thinking this through yet, but JAG makes sense...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

State governments get to decide what governor powers during deadly pandemics, look like?

(I actually haven't really begun thinking this through yet, but JAG makes sense...)

We often get locked into the idea of what checks-and-balances regimen is necessary for the federal government under the federal constitution.  There’s a legitimate debate about whether Congress has given the president more regulatory authority, war-making powers, etc. than it ought to have done (I tend to believe that yes, the presidency is too strong).

But as to state constitutions—the federal constitution merely guarantees all federal citizens “a republican form of [local] government”.  Within those parameters, states have broad discretion to enact constitutions that address the “checks and balances” issue in their own way.  The governor of New Jersey may well be legally and (state) constitutionally justified in doing things that the governor of Wyoming could never get away with.

When we as conservatives demand a “federalist” form of government, we need to remember that just as federalism allows conservative state governments to take a hands-off approach to their people, it also allows progressive state governments to enact broad interventionist policies if that’s what their constituencies want to do.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When we as conservatives demand a “federalist” form of government, we need to remember that just as federalism allows conservative state governments to take a hands-off approach to their people, it also allows progressive state governments to enact broad interventionist policies if that’s what their constituencies want to do.  

And this drives many people to leave liberal states and come to conservative states and turn them blue so that we have no more conservative states.

Why don't liberals wise up and realize that the reason they had to leave their old state was because of LIBERAL policies destroying them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I'm not taking a stand on this video one way or the other, but I am wondering what you saw in it, that you think is a violation of the 4th amendment.  

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Cop didn't take anything, didn't search, didn't seize, didn't have a warrant.  The only thing he did was engage in a consensual conversation with the person, and when she asked what he was going to do, he said he was going to "make documentation" that will be "forwarded to the detective bureau".

Where's the 4th amendment violation?

(Again, not saying the executive order is right or wrong, just wondering your position.)

I see it as overstepping their rights.  Why did the police officer even stop by?  Why did he NOT stop and leave AFTER he was told they were closed. 

UNLESS the executive order ALSO shuts down stores like Amazon, online Walmart, Online Target, and other online entities...he really has NO right to even start questioning in this instance. 

After he clarifies right at the start that the store is actually closed (to the public, which is what the executive orders are supposed to be doing).  In addition, for that area, it specifies that though non-essential stores are to be closed they can continue sales online, phone ordering, or online pickup. 

I'm not sure I'd categorize it as a violation of the 4th amendment, but I'd say that the police officer was not in the right in regards to their actions after a certain point in this video.  At first, I can understand, but as soon as it is apparent that there is no business to the public going on (other than what was allowed, which was online) and that it was declared the store was closed, he should have left.  Continuing as he did could be seen as a form of harassment, though if the store owners wanted to pursue that course of action, their best bet is to contact an attorney familiar with the local laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I see it as overstepping their rights.  Why did the police officer even stop by?  Why did he NOT stop and leave AFTER he was told they were closed. 

he said they got anonymous reports, i.e. they were monitoring her online activity and created a false story about people calling in that she had customers in her store. They have been watching and waiting for her to stay open past 8 in order to pounce. This is all supposition on my part, but it makes the most sense to me. They want to use her as an example that you obey the executive order or you are done. Take the mark or you cannot buy or sell. 😠

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why did the police officer even stop by? 

Did you watch the video?  The cop said several times, he was sent there by dispatch to check on a business that people had said was staying open after 8pm, in violation of the Gov's exec order.   

Quote

Why did he NOT stop and leave AFTER he was told they were closed. 

Because he was there to investigate the claim, and he was asking questions and giving information, basically, doing his job.

 

Quote

UNLESS the executive order ALSO shuts down stores like Amazon, online Walmart, Online Target, and other online entities...he really has NO right to even start questioning in this instance. 

Did you watch the video?  The cop mentioned that the 8pm order applied to all businesses.  So yes, the exec order ALSO shuts down those stores.  Odd to frame the scene a cop dispatched to somewhere in terms of a cop's rights, I'm not sure that word belongs there. 

 

Quote

I'm not sure I'd categorize it as a violation of the 4th amendment, but I'd say that the police officer was not in the right in regards to their actions after a certain point in this video.  ... Continuing as he did could be seen as a form of harassment, though if the store owners wanted to pursue that course of action, their best bet is to contact an attorney familiar with the local laws.

That makes sense.  What I saw, was the cop asking his questions, informing about the law, and doing some arguing, and then he left.  No citation, no arrest, no threats.  Maybe he argued a bit too much.  Yes, interacting with cops can be stressful and scary.  

 

44 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

he said they got anonymous reports, i.e. they were monitoring her online activity and created a false story about people calling in that she had customers in her store.

Cop said it, therefore he lied?  Weird flex bro, but okay...   With all the Karens out their with their cell phones calling the cops about everything and everyone, why can't be the simplest explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

UNLESS the executive order ALSO shuts down stores like Amazon, online Walmart, Online Target, and other online entities...he really has NO right to even start questioning in this instance. 

Because those "stores" aren't located in the city.  And if they are, they are probably following the mask rule.  Some of the rules seem silly, but it wouldn't be too hard for this store owner to comply with the exec. orders.  Wear a mask, and instead of a live feed, record it, then post it later.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

he said they got anonymous reports, i.e. they were monitoring her online activity and created a false story about people calling in that she had customers in her store. They have been watching and waiting for her to stay open past 8 in order to pounce. This is all supposition on my part, but it makes the most sense to me. They want to use her as an example that you obey the executive order or you are done. Take the mark or you cannot buy or sell. 😠

I think most officers, most police departments, have better things to do than to try to set up a 'sting' like this.  That officer didn't want to be there anymore than the owners' wanted him.  But because a complaint was filed, he had to follow up.  I'm sure as soon as he got in his car, he was grumbling about the stupid exec orders also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Take the mark or you cannot buy or sell.

The problem with saying things like this is that, when the true mark of the beast comes, no one will believe us. And they shouldn't if we keep crying wolf. 

In a way, it's like people who rant about losing liberty because stores ask them to wear a mask. When liberty is truly lost, no one will believe us because they've heard us rant about that for so long! 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And this drives many people to leave liberal states and come to conservative states and turn them blue so that we have no more conservative states.

Why don't liberals wise up and realize that the reason they had to leave their old state was because of LIBERAL policies destroying them?

Because they want free stuff and they want local and or Federal government officials to be our new teachers and or mentors. 

C.S. Lewis wrote:  "“The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good — anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name ‘leaders’ for those who were once ‘rulers’. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

The problem with saying things like this is that, when the true mark of the beast comes, no one will believe us. And they shouldn't if we keep crying wolf. 

In a way, it's like people who rant about losing liberty because stores ask them to wear a mask. When liberty is truly lost, no one will believe us because they've heard us rant about that for so long! 

I was speaking sardonically. I am kind of amused at all the people online assuming this is it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Did you watch the video?  The cop said several times, he was sent there by dispatch to check on a business that people had said was staying open after 8pm, in violation of the Gov's exec order.   

Because he was there to investigate the claim, and he was asking questions and giving information, basically, doing his job.

 

Did you watch the video?  The cop mentioned that the 8pm order applied to all businesses.  So yes, the exec order ALSO shuts down those stores.  Odd to frame the scene a cop dispatched to somewhere in terms of a cop's rights, I'm not sure that word belongs there. 

I heard that, but it would be obvious that no customers were in the store really and that it was closed.  The lights were on and two people were there, but that does not really make it open.

In addition, according to their area regulations, they were allowed to sell stuff online from what I understand.  I also did more than just watch the video, I did further research into it.  She had actually been under observation for a while.  A few minutes of observation and it would have been obvious that no one was going in or coming out as well.  They had her under observation for hours.

The executive order hours (as far as anything I could find) applies to business that are open to the public, doing phone orders or curbside pickup...the business was not doing any of those.

This happened in New Jersey.

I read the Executive order and I did not see it saying they had to close by 8PM for online sales.

Quote

Non-Essential Retail: All retail businesses not considered "essential" can open for online or phone ordering and curbside pickup, while following all appropriate mitigation requirements. Delivery and online operations of retail businesses may continue.

---------------------------

Additional Requirements for Non-Essential Retail Operating Curbside Pickup
Non-essential retail stores may reopen for online or phone ordering and curbside pickup at 6 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2020. Non-essential retail businesses that open for curbside pickup must adopt the following social policies:

  • Customers can pick up goods outside of an establishment that they have already ordered but cannot enter the brick-and-mortar premises;
  • Where possible, limit in-store operations to those employees who are responsible for the operations required for curbside pickup;
  • Where possible, handle customer transactions in advance by phone, email, fax, or other means that avoid person-to-person contact;
  • Where possible, customers shall notify the retailer by text message, email, or phone once they arrive, or make best efforts to schedule their arrival time in advance. The customer shall be asked to remain in their vehicle, if arriving by car, until store staff delivers the purchase;
  • Where possible, designated employees shall bring goods outside of the retail establishment and place the goods directly in a customer's vehicle; and
  • For retail businesses operating in shopping malls, employees must bring the goods to customers at the exterior of the mall and place them directly in a customer's vehicle.

Her difficulties was that she is a non-essential business.  She also is apparently a widow with 3 children and failing finances in light of the restrictions of the virus occurring. 

She had already been cited for violation of the executive orders after being under observation and a Detective seeing what he thought were two customers leaving from the rear of the store (it hasn't gone to court, so we only have what the Detective states thus far).  That's two customers, from the rear of the store...Two...for the entire day...

BUT...if they were in the store and customers, than it was a violation of the order.  It was issued at 3PM on the same day as the event that was filmed.

The filming began approximately around 7PM.  There was a closed sign on the outside of the store.  No one had entered or left the store, but the police officer did see someone IN the store.  He did not approach it because he thought someone might be robbing the store, and it was obvious the closed sign was up.  He approached approximately two hours into their filming.

As far as I can see it, there was no real reason for the officer to even pay the visit...BUT...there was not anything really terrible he did at first.  ONLY AFTER it was made plain that it was closed to the public and no customers were really in the store, but he kept going does it get where I'd say he overstepped what he should have been doing.

Today, I saw an update in this.  Whether due to the publicity, or otherwise, he (the police officer) apologized and said that she was 100% in the right.  If she is lawyering up, this is not a wise move for the department (in my opinion) as this will weaken their earlier citation if she decides to go to court and lawyer up (though, I think it would cost her more to do that than to simply pay it).

{Edit - It may also be that they dropped the citation.  I haven't seen this yet, but if they dropped it an apology would make sense in the latter matter as there would be no case for them to worry about.}

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I am kind of amused at all the people online assuming this is it. 

And I'm kind of amused at all the people online acting like wearing a mask is the moral equal of the Gestapo confiscating guns, so we're sort of equal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I was speaking sardonically.

I hope you don't think I'm being a grammar nazi here.  But I'm honestly curious.  Do you understand the difference between sardonic and sarcastic?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

As far as I can see it, there was no real reason for the officer to even pay the visit...

Well, again, dispatch sent him there because they had received complaints about a business being open.  Since this address had been in trouble before, he knows he will have to file paperwork.  "I sat on my butt in my patrol car for 2 hours and saw nothing" isn't sufficient.   He has to make contact.  He has to ask questions and interact.

 

Quote

Today, I saw an update in this.  Whether due to the publicity, or otherwise, he (the police officer) apologized and said that she was 100% in the right.  If she is lawyering up, this is not a wise move for the department (in my opinion) as this will weaken their earlier citation if she decides to go to court and lawyer up (though, I think it would cost her more to do that than to simply pay it).

{Edit - It may also be that they dropped the citation.  I haven't seen this yet, but if they dropped it an apology would make sense in the latter matter as there would be no case for them to worry about.}

Here's a notion, that I haven't specifically seen anyone voice, but it makes sense to me.  "We really don't know if all these weird executive orders carry the weight of law or not.  So we'll go out and cite and whatnot, and it'll get resolved in the courts."  I'm not sure I like that notion, but it goes hand in hand with another notion: "Legal or not, this'll get people to comply, and complying will help end COVID-19 faster, so it's worth it."  I'm not sure I like that notion either, even though I'm in favor of ending the virus as soon as feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I am kind of amused at all the people online assuming this is it. 

You're assuming that "the mark" is something that will only be used once in all of human history.  That would be a mistake.  NOTE: I'm not saying that what you described is the mark.  I'm talking about dismissing claims simply because this isn't "THE mark."

The devil doesn't have any new tools in his toolbox.  They're simply dressed up differently with different societies, populations, social structures, and technology.  The mark is nothing new.  It will simply be repackaged

The idea behind the mark is that we must buy into an ideology that is counter to and in direct conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ (IOW, the great and abominable church).  Do you honestly think the devil has never done that before?  Of course he has.

I believe the biggest mistake that people make regarding the Revelation of John is that they believe it has ONLY to do with Armageddon and the  2nd coming.  That would be incomplete, if not completely wrong.  So, what else is it talking about?  I'll get to that below.

The fist edition of Mormon Doctrine claimed that "The Great and Abominable Church" (TGAAC) was the Catholic Church.  McConkie was roundly criticized for it.  He correct it to say

Quote

The titles "church of the devil" and "great and abominable church" are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.

Nephi tells us that this has been around a LONG time.

The TGAAC is the culture (motivated by political, religious, philosophical... factors) which causes people to make a decision between God and commerce.  And by choosing commerce over God, we receive the mark of the beast.  So, TGAAC and the Mark go hand-in-hand with each other.  One is the ideology.  The other is our acceptance of it.

The Book of Revelation is not just about the earth's history.  It is a warning to us as individuals to not give into the ideology AT ANY POINT IN OUR LIVES -- REGARDLESS OF HOW CLOSE OR FAR WE ARE FROM THE SECOND COMING even if it means our loss of commerce.  We must always watch out.  This is not crying wolf.  It is vigilance.

The devil learned a long time ago that people were willing to DIE for the Lord.  But how many people are willing to LIVE for Him?  How many of us actually stand as a witness of God in all times and in all places?

Quote

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

 -- Matt 19:21-22

The young man did indeed obey many commandments.  But when there was a question of maintaining his livelihood vs obeying the commandments, he chose the former.

Here is the problem with your claim (however sarcastic it may have been):  The mark of the beast is exposed where one is compelled to change their ideology in exchange for worldly wealth.  I don't see the exchange for worldly wealth because of a mask.  I see people losing wealth regardless of their ideology.

So, while I agree with the conclusion that it is not the mark of the beast, the implied reasoning is different.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this